Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
